The SCOTUS came about when a family tried suing a police department after their daughter was murdered by her ex-husband, who she had a restraining order against. The contention was that they expected the police to protect her.

The ruling was that there is no Constitutional requirement for the police to protect a single individual over society as a whole, unless a previous special relationship exists. We serve the people, not a person.

The ruling was not the "cops get to thumb out noses at anyone who calls for help, and ignore them" that people like you make it out to be.

As a practical matter, we cannot be everywhere all the time, and protect everyone. So if something happens to you, you don't get to sue the cops, because we couldn't be there to stop it.

That's what the ruling was about.

Click to expand...

Exactly!

And that's why We as civilians need these weapons. The same weapons that the LEO believe that they need for self defense. I have yet had an LEO show up at the same time I was being robbed. EVER. Seems the Victim is always there first. So why should the LEO have precedence over the people when it comes to the right of self defense?

Me personally, I prefer to shoot it out, and call the cops after to cover my but. (Been barked at by a female officer, because she said if I'm the victim, then why didn't I call the cops!?..) I'm getting old. I'm tired, and I'm cranky. If I get shot, I could use the rest...

And that's why We as civilians need these weapons. The same weapons that the LEO believe that they need for self defense. I have yet had an LEO show up at the same time I was being robbed. EVER. Seems the Victim is always there first. So why should the LEO have precedence over the people when it comes to the right of self defense?

Me personally, I prefer to shoot it out, and call the cops after to cover my but. (Been barked at by a female officer, because she said if I'm the victim, then why didn't I call the cops!?..) I'm getting old. I'm tired, and I'm cranky. If I get shot, I could use the rest...

Click to expand...

Curious, have you heard anyone in this thread say that private citizens DON'T deserve or need the weapons in question?

Heck, I'm still waiting on those posts where a LEO on this forum said he'd come for your guns and there's nothing you could do to stop him.

I tried to find them, but I'm not going through every post in every thread since Sandy Hook to find them. If I could, I would point out the Troll that posted it. But I'm not because I can't find it. It may have been edited. Who knows. But it was there.

As for the other? The OP is complaining that he is being held to the same standards as the civilians in his state. Same as I posted above, that the LEO should not have precedence over the People's right to self defense, as we, the victims are on the crime scene first.

I tried to find them, but I'm not going through every post in every thread since Sandy Hook to find them. If I could, I would point out the Troll that posted it. But I'm not because I can't find it. It may have been edited. Who knows. But it was there.

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that we have no proof it was said? Not to put too fine a point on it...

I'm searching for that now. I think I'm sure who said it, but I don't want to point fingers unless I can find the posts. The threads have been locked, and the posts may have been pulled. But it was here on GT awhile back.

I tried to find them, but I'm not going through every post in every thread since Sandy Hook to find them. If I could, I would point out the Troll that posted it. But I'm not because I can't find it. It may have been edited. Who knows. But it was there.

lawman800, law enforcement are civilians. When you can get deployed to some third world crap hole as a combatant who is subject to the Geneva Conventions, then I would believe otherwise. Until then, you are a civi who enforces civi law on US soil. There is a fundamental difference between the mission of law enforcement and the mission of the military. One is to keep the peace and serve the criminal justice system of the US, the other is to meet on the field of battle, engage with and kill the enemies of the nation. It is an honorable and admirable position to be in law enforcement, but it is still a civi position.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know what the military does and what police do. What does that have to do with being a civilian? The military definition notwithstanding, your fight is with Merriam Webster. Why don't you tell them to change it?

From what I know about dictionaries, they do serious studies on words and meanings constantly to update their product to make sure they have accurate meanings to words in their products. Based on their years of experience and expertise in knowing what words mean and that they have an international reputation that is long-standing, I will take their word over yours.

So, that means that my maternal Grandmother, who grew up in a southern family, was correct when she used a certain word to refer to "African-Americans", because that was what she was taught and grew up using all her life?

Click to expand...

Ouch. Now you are bringing logical arguments into bear? You really want to win this fight, eh?

Then you would be wrong in GA and many other states they sign a 2 year contract that causes them to be responsible to repay the cost of training if they quit they cannot work in LE til the debt is paid.

Click to expand...

Actually, LAPD was a test case in CA where they made recruits sign 5 year contracts and if they break it, they needed to pay back the cost of training. Well, a few quit and went to smaller and better paying agencies, LAPD sued, and lost.

Court's ruling here was that the 13th Amendment forbids forced labor, being akin to slavery. If someone does not want to work for you, you cannot force them to stay in the employment relationship. Now, you might be able to recoup costs if you have liquidated damages stipulated beforehand with enough specificity, but they also lost on that count. Maybe the judge just was anti-LAPD?

As for preventing them from working in LE until the debt is paid? How would you even enforce that unless POST pulls their certification until paid and I doubt that is even legal. Now an agency might use that as a consideration in hiring, but as I said, here, those guys already got jobs and didn't have to worry. Made for bad relations for a while with LAPD and that agency, but hey, it happened.

An LEO is not bound by terms of contract to serve a 2-4 year term, or be charged with desertion if he or she doesn't fulfill there contract obligation, like the average person serving in the Armed forces.

Click to expand...

Actually, military members can get out before their time is up, and still get honorable discharges from it. Pretty sure they don't advertise that fact, but my platoon sergeant even had a quote hanging in his office about it. I don't recall the general it was from, and the quote is paraphrased, but it was something along the lines of:

"We are a volunteer service. If someone doesn't meet our standards, we thank them politely for trying and send the home."

It's not exactly the same as giving two weeks notice at the office, but it's hardly unheard of.

Millennium Member

I am not LEO nor am I affiliated with the firearms industry except for being a bonafide gun nut. I believe that this is their way of getting the undivided attention of the legislature in hope lf gaining change/repeal of their new draconian gun laws.

ABOUT

Glock Talk is the #1 site to discuss the world’s most popular pistol, chat about firearms, accessories and more. As our membership continues to grow we look forward to reading your stories and learning from your experiences. Membership is free and we welcome all types of shooters, whether you're a novice or a pro. Come for the info, stay and make some friends.